Two-fer Monday!

1. -- Wannabe to Gonnabe!

Our PRU sources report the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District has selected Mr. David Herman to fill the vacancy on the Park District Board. Mr. Herman will bring his financial background to the position. We're told Mr. Herman holds a CPA and MBA in finance, and is employed in the health care arena at a Chicago hospital.

Congratulations, Mr. Herman. Welcome to the machine!


2. -- Public Works and Public Safety COW Tonight!

The brain trust -- we use the phrase loosely -- comprising the representative body for the City of Park Ridge will be meeting tonight at the usual time, in the usual place. Tonight's COW agenda(.pdf) appears to offer a lot of talk and virtually no action -- you know, the usual.

Videos tomorrow!

Autumn Colors!

'Autumn Jewels' by Dragon Winter
- abstractdigitalartgallery.com

Enjoy a colorful weekend!

Give the Pub-dogs A Bone!

Good afternoon faithful PRU readers! Today we feel you should take a click-trip over to the Public Watchdog blog. Yesterday, they posted an editorial on Monday night's City Council meeting which we feel is a very good read and worth your time -- "Show Trial" An Affront To Park Ridge Residents

The PRU Crew really liked reading --

But what the most naïve observer could not have expected was the theater of the absurd that actually took place over more than two hours of apparently not-very-valuable City Council meeting time.

Theater of the absurd! We couldn't have said it better! Hey! We did say that!

Another Comment In The Spotlight!

The following comment was submitted and posted to PRU --

October 28, 2009 8:31 AM

Anonymous said...

Can anyone on this blog explain to me why Park Ridge Baseball, which enjoys "Affiliate" status of the Park Ridge Park District pays no federal taxes and perhaps more interestingly does not file Tax Form 990 (which is typically filed for non-profit organizations). They utilize our parks and facilities at no cost (from what I can tell from the Park Ridge Park District budget). Shouldn't one of the requirements of being an "Affiliate" of the Park District be that we understand their economics? PRU can you help get to the bottom of this?

Ask, and ye shall receive, if time and resources allow.

Here is the information we have been able to gather --

Former Park Board Commissioner, Steve Hunst, began looking into the issue of the Big 4 Affiliates -- Baseball, Football, Hockey and Soccer -- and whether the Park District had obtained their financial information.

When Mr. Hunst delved into the mess, he found out that while Soccer and Hockey had been dutifully filing their tax returns on an annual basis, Football had failed to do so for nearly 40 years and Baseball had failed to file for the better part of 55 years.

As the commenter correctly stated, 501(c)(3) organizations are required by law to file tax returns. Some form of tax return is required for all non-profit organizations.

Apparently, the Park District had a policy in place whereby they requested the annual tax returns of any affiliate who actually filed a tax return. Thus, for years, they had the Hockey and Soccer returns, but nothing for Baseball or Football -- and no one on the staff questioned this because the policy only sought to obtain those that had actually been filed.

A huge stink was raised with the Baseball people and they begrudgingly filed their first tax return last year, as did the folks from Football.

We understand these affiliate programs bring in well in excess of $500,000.00 per year, each. However, the commenter was incorrect in stating that the affiliates pay nothing to the PRRPD. Each of the Big 4 pays $5.00 per kid to the PRRPD -- for each kid who registers in a given session -- to offset the costs of maintaining the fields, etc. that the Park District incurs. Additionally, Hockey pays more than the $5.00 per kid fee; Hocky pays thousands of dollars in ice time fees.

Generally speaking, we have heard nothing but good things about the affiliates and the programs they run. A few months back, Park Ridge Youth Soccer wrote a check for $400,000.00 to the PRRPD which was to go towards improvements in the soccer fields at Northeast Park.

We also understand both Soccer and Hockey have both written big checks to the Park District over the years to improve and maintain facilities they use.

Unfortunately, it does look as if Baseball and Football have never once opened their checkbooks to the Park District to provide anything beyond the mandatory $5.00 per kid fee.

So there you have it, Anonymous. We hope this information is useful to you.

PRCC Videos 11-02-09!

Something the PRU Crew would appreciate our readers keep in mind --

Article 2 of the Municipal Code -- Corporate Seals, Emblems And Policies

Chapter 5 -- Ethics Provisions

Subsection 2 -- Disclosure Statement

Item D. -- Policy

Says...

Disclosure of Economic Relationship

1. Policy Statement

One of the primary duties of a City Official is to Act on Matters where a Petitioner is seeking Consideration from the City. From time to time, a City Official may be required to Act on a Matter in circumstances where the City Official is involved in an Economic Relationship with a Petitioner.

It is the intent of this section that it be construed broadly for the purpose of granting to the citizens of Park Ridge full knowledge of the dealings of City Officials as those dealings may relate to City business.

2. Disclosure Required

When a City Official is called upon to Act on a Matter in the course of his or her official duties, the City Official shall publicly disclose any Economic Relationship the City Official has with a Petitioner prior to Acting on the Matter, where either: (1) the City Official has a current Economic Relationship with a Petitioner; or (2) the City Official has had a previous Economic Relationship with a Petitioner while the City Official knew that the Petitioner was seeking Consideration from the City; or, (3) the City Official is actively pursuing an opportunity to establish an Economic Relationship with the Petitioner. If disclosure pursuant to this policy would violate a confidential relationship between the City Official and the Petitioner, (such as an Attorney/Client privilege or HIPAA), then the City Official shall abstain from Acting on the Matter and when abstaining, need state only that the abstention is done pursuant to this policy.

In the case of Disclosure of campaign contributions, the actual amount of the contributions shall be disclosed. The Disclosure statement shall be filed prior to the time of Acting on the Matter. The City Attorney shall read the Disclosure into the record at the next regular meeting of the City Council. However, should the matter require discussion prior to such meeting, then the City Attorney shall give notice of the Disclosure to the City Manager; the City Clerk and each member of the City Council within twenty-four hours of its filing. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall the City Official be required or expected to disclose any matter of which the City Official does not have actual knowledge.

And now for your viewing (dis)pleasure are all 5 videos from last night's City Council theater of the absurd! We aren't going to index them today -- watch all of them.

Video #00002.MTS -- PRCC 11/2/09


Video #00003.MTS -- PRCC 11/2/09


Video #00004.MTS -- PRCC 11/2/09


Video #00005.MTS -- PRCC 11/2/09


Video #00006.MTS -- PRCC 11/2/09

Freewheeling -- Interim Post!

Good morning PRU readers! We're working through the Melidosian Motionbox magic to bring you the videos from last night's City Council meeting. As soon as we can get our act together, we will post them.

In the meantime, anyone who cares to share their observations, thoughts, or comments can do so here.

Below is a short version summary of some of last night's festivities, submitted by one of our faithful PRU readers --

November 3, 2009 10:15 AM

Anonymous said...

Short version is: > City Attorney Buzz Hill got prodded into making a recommendation that the council vote to prosecute Frimark. This was done with him kicking and screaming and wishing he didn't have to do it but in the end he said the facts showed that Frimark violated the ethic ordinance and, in a court hearing, a judge might likely find against Frimark.

> Jack Owens got up and spouted off about how Frimark didn't know what he was doing... there was no intent. And then he started parsing words... "broker" versus "agent" and the meaning of "consideration".

> Several people got up to speak in favor of prosecuting Frimark. A couple commented on the council's ability to be objective since 6 of the 7 of them either gave and/or got money to/from Frimark during the last election cycle. A couple of people got up to talk about what a great gut Frimark was, how this was all a mistake and that the prosecution was out of proportion to the act. Oh, after that someone commented on if Frimark were such a great guy and a man of character why he didn’t pay his property tax bill... not sure what this has to do with the issue but it was good theater as the place went a little up for grabs.

> It went to the council and became quickly obvious that the majority would vote to NOT prosecute. Allegretti then went on a tirade about how this was all too political and mean-spirited. When the video comes out Allegretti's "speech" is a must see. Joe Sweeney was the only alderman who spoke in favor of letting a court do its job... once the aldermen voted to prosecute.

> The vote took place... every alderman voted NO to prosecute... including Sweeney who voted after the Mayor... who incredibly also voted not to prosecute. I think the general feeling in the room after the 8 - 0 vote not to prosecute was one of genuine surprise... especially the actions of the Mayor and Sweeney-after his earlier comments. So in summary... it was good to see what happened in open session (there was a chance this could have gone to closed session); as "sausage making" goes it was probably par for the course - definitely fugly.

>In the end, Frimark probably comes off looking bad to those who pay attention... but for the many who do not he will look as if he was "acquitted", so to speak. And in the end, he did lose the business and presumably the related commission that would have been paid since PRC pulled the related insurance policy from him (there was no explanation as to why this happened) after just one month in force.Bottom line... many are left to wonder about the teeth in the ethics ordinance if the end result in this matter is any example of how it is enforced.

>Finally, the matter could actually be continued if someone files a complaint with a sworn affidavit, at which point the City Attorney is bound to hire a Special Investigator to look into the matter. Any takers?

Your City Council Triple Feature!

Park Ridge City Hall is going to be a busy place this evening!

The festivities will begin with a quickie meeting of the Liquor License Review Board, beginning at 6:15 pm. The City Council will then hold a Workshop on the Flood Study Report, set to start at 6:30 pm.

The most entertaining portion of tonight's gathering promises to be the regular City Council meeting scheduled to start at 7:30 pm. The agenda includes the usual niceties and consent items. However, tonight's City Council agenda also includes two items we hope people will pay close attention to.

The first item is the City Attorney's report on the ethics violation issue concerning former Mayor Howard Frimark. The City Council will first decide whether to hold their discussion in closed or open session -- of course, the PRU Crew thinks it should be held in open session since there is hardly a soul that doesn't know the issue involves the former Mayor, and it is no secret there are Aldermen with whom the former Mayor has personal and economic relationships.

The Aldermen, with whom Frimark has shared personal and economic relationships, will have a choice to make before deciding what to do with the report from the City Attorney. Those Aldermen can choose to disclose their economic relationships with former Mayor Howard Frimark, and then they can freely engage in discussion and debate and a vote on the issue. Or...those Aldermen can choose to recuse themselves from discussion and debate and a vote on the issue. Recusal allows elected officials to avoid full disclosure, as recently demonstrated by Mayor Schmidtzkrieg here (.pdf), but recusal also demands elected officials not engage in discussion, debate or a vote on an issue. We believe the choice of either disclosure or recusal is required whether or not the City Council holds the discussion in closed or open session.

It should all be terribly interesting to watch!

The second item on tonight's City Council agenda which we hope people will pay close attention to is item b. Approve first reading of Ordinance for proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Case Number TA-09-02, under the Planning & Zoning Commission report.

The PRU Crew has discussed the issue both here and here. And our opinion on the matter still hasn't changed. This is a very important issue moooooving forward.

And we look forward to the videos for tomorrow!